BianchiCam wrote:Centre of car hit so either the rider was riding central or the driver veered to the left at point if impact.'Distraction' anyone?

Two probable scenarios1. Driver following car ahead. Both in left lane. First car changes lanes to pass cyclist, second driver is too close behind (and has mind in neutral) and drives straight over the cyclist.2. Driver following car ahead. Both in right lane. Second driver thinks first driver is going too slowly (perhaps backed off while passing) and decides to pass in the left lane. But now too close to see whether there's traffic in the left lane (or just DGAF) and drives straight over the cyclist.

BianchiCam wrote:Centre of car hit so either the rider was riding central or the driver veered to the left at point if impact.'Distraction' anyone?

Well this article from the The Age http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/cycli ... 022q4.html says that the driver is (was) in custody. I haven't heard anything else relating to this so I'm not sure, but that could mean there was something more than just the usual "whoops I didn't see him" involved. Does anyone have any more info on exactly what is going on with the driver and the police at the moment?

A Victoria Police spokeswoman said the driver of the car, a 23-year-old Gisborne woman, was in custody.

A top young bloke from Bendigo was run down and killed today. Cycled with him quite a few times. Always friendly and positive and a few times offered a wheel and a tow to an old bloke about to be dropped.

warthog1 wrote:A top young bloke from Bendigo was run down and killed today. Cycled with him quite a few times. Always friendly and positive and a few times offered a wheel and a tow to an old bloke about to be dropped.

Quite a kick in the guts to come home and see this in my Farcebook feed. I didn't know him that well, but we'd crossed paths quite a bit in HPV and MTB events over the years and he was always A Thoroughly Good Bloke.

One of those weeks one would rather forget, this follows the passing of a young bloke (16) from the MTB club I'm in, and occasional customer, in a motorbike accident last weekend.

warthog1 wrote:A top young bloke from Bendigo was run down and killed today. Cycled with him quite a few times. Always friendly and positive and a few times offered a wheel and a tow to an old bloke about to be dropped.

Quite a kick in the guts to come home and see this in my Farcebook feed. I didn't know him that well, but we'd crossed paths quite a bit in HPV and MTB events over the years and he was always A Thoroughly Good Bloke.

One of those weeks one would rather forget, this follows the passing of a young bloke (16) from the MTB club I'm in, and occasional customer, in a motorbike accident last weekend.

It appears the driver just hasn't seen him and there is no shoulder on that part of the road in a 100km/h zone.A 20 year old female P plater.I hope she wasn't distracted by technology.

Yeah I've watched Jason growing in ability and as a person just cycling in the local bunch over the 6 years I've been here.He was not a close friend but I knew him.Makes it a lot more personal. Sorry to hear about the young bloke from your MTB club

62 year old cyclist struck by a car travelling in the same direction on the 22nd of October in Salisbury Park died a week later in hospital. 19 year old driver of the car charged with causing death by dangerous driving, driving while disqualified and driving with a BAC of 0.091.

How the F... do you already have a disqualified license at 19 years old and then choose to high range drink drive?

https://www.news.com.au/national/south- ... b78b6e3697 The driver appeared in court the other day. Pleaded guilty to causing death by dangerous driving, but is fighting some of the other charges (not clear what - it'd be a pretty open and shut case that he was drunk and disqualified).

news.com.au wrote:A TEENAGER has pleaded guilty to death by dangerous driving over a crash that killed a cyclist in Salisbury Plains last year.

Garang Akech Luk, 19, entered his plea in Adelaide Magistrates Court on Thursday, but his lawyer said he will contest one of the aggravated features of the charge.

Luk’s car collided with a cyclist as they were both travelling along Saints Rd near Willochra Rd in October last year.

The cyclist, a 62-year-old Salisbury man, sustained serious head injuries and was rushed to the Royal Adelaide Hospital.

He died in hospital a week later.

Luk’s bail was continued and he will appear in the District Court for arraignment in July.

EDIT: She's been charged with "dangerous driving causing death, careless driving and using a phone while driving" (my emphasis). This is exactly what I thought when I saw photos of the crash scene - the car had a dent square in the middle of the bonnet, and (IMO) there's no way that could have happened unless the driver wasn't looking.

The ABC story has a link to minimum passing laws, which is well and good, but minimum passing laws would've been no help in this case

EDIT: She's been charged with "dangerous driving causing death, careless driving and using a phone while driving" (my emphasis). This is exactly what I thought when I saw photos of the crash scene - the car had a dent square in the middle of the bonnet, and (IMO) there's no way that could have happened unless the driver wasn't looking.

The ABC story has a link to minimum passing laws, which is well and good, but minimum passing laws would've been no help in this case

My personal opinion, if you kill someone while driving a car and you were on the phone, it should be at least manslaughter, not some low grade driving offense.

EDIT: She's been charged with "dangerous driving causing death, careless driving and using a phone while driving" (my emphasis). This is exactly what I thought when I saw photos of the crash scene - the car had a dent square in the middle of the bonnet, and (IMO) there's no way that could have happened unless the driver wasn't looking.

The ABC story has a link to minimum passing laws, which is well and good, but minimum passing laws would've been no help in this case

My personal opinion, if you kill someone while driving a car and you were on the phone, it should be at least manslaughter, not some low grade driving offense.

All the passing laws in the world won't save you from a drongo that doesn't even see you ............. wonder what her Facebook status is now ...........

EDIT: She's been charged with "dangerous driving causing death, careless driving and using a phone while driving" (my emphasis). This is exactly what I thought when I saw photos of the crash scene - the car had a dent square in the middle of the bonnet, and (IMO) there's no way that could have happened unless the driver wasn't looking.

The ABC story has a link to minimum passing laws, which is well and good, but minimum passing laws would've been no help in this case

My personal opinion, if you kill someone while driving a car and you were on the phone, it should be at least manslaughter, not some low grade driving offense.

https://www.bendigoadvertiser.com.au/st ... n-lowndes/Agreed.I had heard she was on the phone at the time and was worried it had been swept under the carpet given the length of time it has taken for the charges to eventuate.I still don't expect any custodial sentence however.

EDIT: She's been charged with "dangerous driving causing death, careless driving and using a phone while driving" (my emphasis). This is exactly what I thought when I saw photos of the crash scene - the car had a dent square in the middle of the bonnet, and (IMO) there's no way that could have happened unless the driver wasn't looking.

The ABC story has a link to minimum passing laws, which is well and good, but minimum passing laws would've been no help in this case

My personal opinion, if you kill someone while driving a car and you were on the phone, it should be at least manslaughter, not some low grade driving offense.

https://www.bendigoadvertiser.com.au/st ... n-lowndes/Agreed.I had heard she was on the phone at the time and was worried it had been swept under the carpet given the length of time it has taken for the charges to eventuate.I still don't expect any custodial sentence however.

I'm sure we'll hear all sorts of stories about how the pretty young driver is an upstanding citizen, promising Horse Rider blah blah blah, and she'll get slapped with a wet lettuce leaf.

If there's any justice at all, they'll make an example out of her for killing someone while sending text messages and reinforce that this was not an accident, but that her actions lead directly to Jason's death. I dare to dream.

queequeg wrote:If there's any justice at all, they'll make an example out of her for killing someone while sending text messages and reinforce that this was not an accident, but that her actions lead directly to Jason's death. I dare to dream.

queequeg wrote:If there's any justice at all, they'll make an example out of her for killing someone while sending text messages and reinforce that this was not an accident, but that her actions lead directly to Jason's death. I dare to dream.

But in that case there were witnesses that could testify that the cyclist did nothing to contribute to the crash and was clearly visible.

In the absence of a witness it will largely depend upon what the driver says they saw the cyclist do and the extent to which the crash forensics can show road positions at the time of the crash.

Clearly, the driver wasn't looking at the road, given the photos of the damage to her car. The victim did not stand a chance, and I think the road positioning is completely irrelevant. He was hit from behind on a clear day, and it is always the responsibility of the person behind to pass in a safe manner. In this case, there appears to be no attempt to pass at all, because the driver was most likely too busy on facebook to even notice him. The law is there to speak for Jason.

queequeg wrote:. He was hit from behind on a clear day, and it is always the responsibility of the person behind to pass in a safe manner.

If the cyclist moves from the shoulder to the lane it is the cyclists responsibility to give way to the car coming from behind. I am not suggesting that this is what happened but if the forensics don't rule it out and there are no witnesses then it is something the defence can claim happened. Even if there isn't enough shoulder to practically ride on they can claim the rider had stopped off the road for a break and moved onto the road in their path.

It is a very popular road for cycling and given she is a local resident it is reasonable to assume she should have expected to see cyclists.Jason was a professional cyclist with 10s of thousands of kms under his belt who it can be established was a competent sensible road user.

You are correct though there will be no end of mitigating bulshizen excuses fabricated and she will express profound regret, with a pledge to never use her phone whilst driving again.She will be considered rehabilitated and that a custodial sentence will contribute no further to her rehabilitation and that will be that.

Scott_C wrote:If the cyclist moves from the shoulder to the lane it is the cyclists responsibility to give way to the car coming from behind. I am not suggesting that this is what happened but if the forensics don't rule it out and there are no witnesses then it is something the defence can claim happened. Even if there isn't enough shoulder to practically ride on they can claim the rider had stopped off the road for a break and moved onto the road in their path.

This is exactly how I thought about it too - very cynical, but I suppose we're conditioned not to expect anything better from people. Should this be her defence then I reckon there's a 90% chance she's lying (perhaps higher). A liar and a killer - good folk. But then again, what do we know??

queequeg wrote:. He was hit from behind on a clear day, and it is always the responsibility of the person behind to pass in a safe manner.

If the cyclist moves from the shoulder to the lane it is the cyclists responsibility to give way to the car coming from behind. I am not suggesting that this is what happened but if the forensics don't rule it out and there are no witnesses then it is something the defence can claim happened. Even if there isn't enough shoulder to practically ride on they can claim the rider had stopped off the road for a break and moved onto the road in their path.

I understand there was no indication of braking until after the collision. Jason was struck with the left side of the car, the car was still in the lane and his body landed off the road to the left.It is not a wide section of road.You would assume that is enough to indicate she made no reasonable attempt to avoid him. Coupled with the phone data it should be enough to prove fault.It remains to be seen the result. Don't expect much and you won't be disappointed

queequeg wrote:. He was hit from behind on a clear day, and it is always the responsibility of the person behind to pass in a safe manner.

If the cyclist moves from the shoulder to the lane it is the cyclists responsibility to give way to the car coming from behind. I am not suggesting that this is what happened but if the forensics don't rule it out and there are no witnesses then it is something the defence can claim happened. Even if there isn't enough shoulder to practically ride on they can claim the rider had stopped off the road for a break and moved onto the road in their path.

That's where the car stopped. If we assume she was going 100kph the collision site would be ~100m before this point if she didn't start braking until after the collision, by my estimate that puts the collision on the other side of the curve where there might be more of a shoulder, the fact that the shoulder disappears could help an argument he was on the shoulder until it disappeared and had to move into the road.

I'm sure we all agree there is no way a professional cyclist ducks in and out of a disappearing shoulder but if the jury are people whose experience with cyclists extends to kids and disqualified drivers on BSO's a defence lawyer that cites that the law says cyclists are required to keep as far left as practicable on single lane roads can create doubt that it was the cyclist moving right (or just being anywhere except the far left of the lane) that created the collision, not the driver's actions. As there is no minimum passing law here the cyclist moving right by 2 feet can be enough to turn a "safe" pass (with 1mm gap) into this collision.

lets hope the Victoria Police have a strong well prepared case and the jury (if applicable?) don't choose the it could happen to any one of us verdict - the defence line described above was used in a UK teen cyclist death...apparently defence lawyers can choose to use it when the sun failed to shine at the time of the appalling driving:

“At this point he said he was possibly 10 to 12 seconds away from the point of collision when he noticed the cyclist who he claimed rode off the pavement and onto the road without looking, “ the prosecutor said.

Mr Sullivan said it was then taken away for analysis where text messages were discovered between the driver and his partner......."

Who is online

About the Australian Cycling Forums

The largest cycling discussion forum in Australia for all things bike; from new riders to seasoned bike nuts, the Australian Cycling Forums are a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.